IR 384, Spring 2011
Introduction to Asian Security Affairs
Dr. Dan LynchTel:213-740-0773
Associate ProfessorE-mail:
School of International RelationsOffice:VKC 326-B
University of Southern CaliforniaOffice
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0043Hours:M-W 1:30 – 3 pm
A NOTE on OFFICE HOURS: Because unexpected meetings and such occasionally come up, office hours sometimes have to be cancelled. Therefore, please schedule an appointment with me in advance.
Goals and Requirements of IR 384
This course’s main objective is to provide you with a comprehensive portrait of Asian international relations from the perspective of security, defined broadly to include not only military security but also economic security, political security, societal security, cultural security, and environmental security. We will survey the entire Asian region, including Northeast Asia (China, Japan, the Koreas, and Taiwan), Southeast Asia (the ASEAN countries, particularly Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia), and South Asia (mostly India and Pakistan). These three regions form distinct “security complexes,” but given the rise of China—which borders all three—and the US’s assertion of an interest in all three regions, the security complexes of Asia are ultimately linked together.
China’s rise, India’s increasing strength, and Russia’s recent resurgence combine also to draw Central Asia into the complex mix—a development reinforced by the terror threat from Afghanistan; from outside powers’ framing of that threat; and from intensified competition for the world’s dwindling carbon-based energy reserves. Beyond these traditional military and economic concerns, the new challenges to national identity presented by globalization, and to ecological stability by China’s rise (and India’s), combine to make Asia an intricate space in which many critical variables are changing all at once. This can sometimes make the continent’s security affairs seem bewildering and baffling, its overall trajectory impossible to predict with satisfying accuracy. But Asia’s weight in world politics interacts with its (ultimately) pleasing complexity to suggest why trying to comprehend it is so important.
This can only be possible if we all do a better job cultivating our capacity to understand Asian security affairs from the perspectives of Asians themselves. We wouldn’t want simply to replace a naïve Western-centric perspective with an equally-naïve and overgeneralized Asia-centric perspective. That kind of approach would only lead to distortions, delusions, and ultimately disasters of a different kind. In truth, there can’t BE a coherent Asia-centric perspective, shared Asia-wide, because there isn’t a coherent Asia. It is far too vast a region and far too diverse in terms of language, ethnicity, religion, gender relations, distribution of natural resources, experiences with the West, and so on, for sweeping generalizations to withstand critical scrutiny.
To help you appreciate the complexity, not only will we devote the entire first half of the semester to surveying the distinctive security situations facing 15-20 different countries (with some receiving closer attention than others); but in addition, everyone in the class will be asked to select a country they don’t know much about already and follow its developments in a focused and systematic way using mainly online news sources—beginning in early February and continuing until the end of the term. Then during class discussions, your task (or one of them, at least) will be to keep the rest of us updated on how “your” particular country is being affected (or not) by whatever the security issue is we happen to be focusing on that day. With so many different students specializing in such a large variety of countries—following developments closely and sharing their discoveries and insights—we can all start developing a more textured and nuanced appreciation for the complexity of Asian security affairs.
I will ask you to turn in a 1-2 paged proposal on what country you would like to cover, and why, on Wednesday, February 1st. I will grade that proposal and the result will count toward your final course grade. The reason I’ll grade it is because I want you to think very carefully about what country to choose, coming up with a reason other than that the country is large and powerful. We don’t want everyone focusing on China, India, and Japan. We want to see as many different countries included as possible, including the likes of Mongolia, Sri Lanka, and Burma. I will look favorably upon students who propose to follow a relatively low-profile country. Of course we will also need SOME students to follow the more prominent ones. But I would like it to be people who can produce creative and thoughtful explanations for precisely why those countries need to be followed.
Every time we meet, I’ll do a mix of lecturing and leading discussion. During the first half of the term, when we’re surveying the 15-20 countries, I’ll lecture more and leave less time for discussion. But then after the midterm, the format will change, so that I’ll lecture less and we (all) discuss more—focusing on the distinctive security situations facing “your” particular country. At the end of the term—on Monday, April 30th—I’ll ask you to hand in a short (8-10 page) ANALYSIS ofthe core security issues facing your country. You should concentrate in the paper on elucidating your sense of how, and why, perceptions of security threats differed in your country from those of othercountries; where there were nevertheless similarities (and why); and what the implications are (i.e., what lessons we should take away from your findings).
Here, then, is the way final course grades will be calculated:
Country selection justification (due):Wednesday, February 1st(expertise)
Midterm exam (in-class on):Wednesday, March 7th30 percent
Final exam (in class on):Friday, May 4th35 percent
Class participation:15 percent
Demonstration of “expertise” in the country you specialize in:20 percent
(The 20 percent is calculated from both in-class performance directly related to discussing “your” country, and the quality of the 8-10 pagepaper due Monday, April 30th, by 5 pm. Also figured in here will be your country proposal.)
EXTRA CREDIT: There are three (and only three) ways to receive extra credit in IR 384: (1) participate in TIRP; (2) participate in the JEP Peace Games; or (3) attend three pre-approved public talks sponsored by on-campus units, after each of which you would write up (within about 24 hours) a 2-paged summary and analysis. Choosing any of these options will—assuming you do a good job—result in the participation component of your final course grade being raised by one notch (for example, from a B+ to an A-). But you can only pursue one option for extra credit; your main energies should be focused on mastering the materials in the readings and lectures and participating intelligently in discussions.
COURSE ADMINISTRATION: This course will not have a TA, so please come directly to me when administrative problems arise.
POLICY ON RECOMMENDATION LETTERS: I will consider—and usually consent to—writing letters of recommendation for any student who (a) completes two of my courses, (b) earns an A- or better in both courses, and (c) never uses their computer in class for anything other than taking notes. I’ll even write a letter for someone who gets a B+ in the first course and an A- or higher in the second one, because I like to see improvement.
CHECKING EMAIL, FACEBOOK, THE NEWS, WHATEVER, IN CLASS: It’s immature and rude to do this; you’re not learning anything; and you annoy your fellow students. Therefore, pleasenever do it in IR 384. The same thing goes for text-messaging. It’s all easy to spot: trust me. Using computers and telephones other than for taking notes will result in theparticipation component of your final course grade being slashed by up to 50% and all extra credit being invalidated. Definitely not worth it!
USC Statement on Academic Integrity
USC seeks to maintain an optimal learning environment. General principles of academic honesty include the concept of respect for the intellectual property of others, the expectation that individual work will be submitted unless otherwise allowed by an instructor, and the obligations both to protect one’s own academic work from misuse by others as well as to avoid using another’s work as one’s own. All students are expected to understand and abide by these principles. Scampus, the Student Guidebook, contains the Student Conduct Code in Section 11.00, while the recommended sanctions are located in Appendix A:
Students suspected of academic dishonesty will be referred to the Office of Student Judicial Affairs and Community Standards. The inquiry process is explained at:
USC Statement for Students with Disabilities
Any student requesting academic accommodations based on a disability is required to register with Disability Services and Programs (DSP) each semester. A letter of verification for approved accommodations can be obtained from DSP. Please be sure the letter is delivered to the professor or your TA as early in the semester as possible. DSP is located in STU 301 and is open 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The phone number is (213) 740-0776.
Books Ordered via Bookstore
Alagappa, Muthiah, ed., Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003.
Rigger, Shelley. Why Taiwan Matters: Small Island, Global Powerhouse. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.
Tellis, Ashley J., Andrew Marble, and Travis Tanner, eds. Strategic Asia 2010-11: Asia’s Rising Power and America’s Continued Purpose. Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2010.
Tellis, Ashley J., Travis Tanner, and Jessica Keough, eds. Strategic Asia 2011-12: Asia Responds to Its Rising Powers, China and India. Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2011.
Course Schedule
9 January (M): Approaches to Understanding Security Problems in Asia (1)
- Ashley J. Tellis, “Strategic Asia: Continuing Success with Continuing Risks,” in Ashley J. Tellis, Andrew Marble, and Travis Tanner, eds., Strategic Asia 2010-11: Asia’s Rising Power and America’s Continued Purpose (Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2010), pp. 3-22. (Bookstore)
11 January (W): The Cold War and Competing Development Strategies in Asia (2)
Guest lecture: Professor Saori Katada, USC School of International Relations
a.Barry Buzan and Ole Waever, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 93-171. (Blackboard)
16 January (M): NO CLASS (Martin Luther King Day)
18 January (W): The Complex and Abiding Impacts of Western Imperialism (3)
- Edward Malefakis, “The Rise and Fall of Western Empire in Asia: 1500-1975,” in Ainslie T. Embree and Carol Gluck, ed., Asia in Western and World History (Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe, 1997), pp. 172-189. (Blackboard)
- Harvey Goldman, “Images of the Other: Asia in Nineteenth-Century Western Thought—Hegel, Marx, and Weber,” in Ainslie T. Embree and Carol Gluck, ed., Asia in Western and World History (Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe, 1997), pp. 146-171. (Blackboard)
- Gerald Horne, “Race from Power: U.S. Foreign Policy and the General Crisis of ‘White Supremacy,’” Diplomatic History 23(3), Summer 1999, pp. 437-61. (Blackboard)
23 January (M): The US in Asia: Adapting to the Rise of China and India (4)
a.Kenneth B. Pyle, “International Order and the Rise of Asia: History and Theory,” in Ashley J. Tellis, Travis Tanner, and Jessica Keough, eds., Strategic Asia 2011-12: Asia Responds to Its Rising Powers (Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2011), pp. 35-62. (Bookstore)
- Walter LaFeber, “The Tension between Democracy and Capitalism during the American Century,” Diplomatic History 23(2), Spring 1999, pp. 263-84. (Blackboard)
- Ashley J. Tellis, “The United States and Asia’s Rising Giants,” in Ashley J. Tellis, Travis Tanner, and Jessica Keough, eds., Strategic Asia 2011-12: Asia Responds to Its Rising Powers (Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2011), pp. 3-32. (Bookstore)
25 January (W): China (5)
a.Zhang Feng, “Rethinking the ‘Tribute System:’Broadening the Conceptual Horizon of Historical East Asian Politics,” Chinese Journal of International Politics 2 (2009), pp. 545-574. (Blackboard)
b.Daniel C. Lynch, “Chinese Thinking on the Future of International Relations: Realism as the Ti, Rationalism as the Yong?” The China Quarterly, No. 197 (March 2009), pp. 87-107. (Blackboard)
c.M. Taylor Fravel, “China Views India’s Rise: Deepening Cooperation, Managing Differences,” in Ashley J. Tellis, Travis Tanner, and Jessica Keough, eds., Strategic Asia 2011-12: Asia Responds to Its Rising Powers (Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2011), pp. 65-98. (Bookstore)
30 January (M): Taiwan (6)
a.Shelley Rigger, Why Taiwan Matters: Small Island, Global Powerhouse (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011), pp. 1-94. (Bookstore)
1 February (W): Japan (7)
a.T. J. Pempel, “Japanese Strategy under Koizumi,” in Gilbert Rozman, Kazuhiko Togo, and Joseph P. Ferguson, eds., Japanese Strategic Thought toward Asia (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007), pp. 109-33. (Blackboard)
b.Yul Sohn, “Japan’s New Regionalism: China Shock, Values, and the East Asian Community,” Asian Survey 50 (3), May/June 2010, pp. 497-519. (Blackboard)
c.Michael J. Green, “Japan, India, and the Strategic Triangle with China,” in Ashley J. Tellis, Travis Tanner, and Jessica Keough, eds., Strategic Asia 2011-12: Asia Responds to Its Rising Powers (Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2011), pp. 131-159. (Bookstore)
6 February (M): South Korea (8)
a.Jae Ho Chung, “China’s ‘Soft’ Clash with South Korea: The History War and Beyond,” Asian Survey 49(3), May/June 2009, pp. 468-483. (Blackboard)
b.Heon Joo Jung, “The Rise and Fall of Anti-American Sentiment in South Korea: Deconstructing Hegemonic Ideas and Threat Perception,” Asian Survey 50(5), September/October 2010, pp. 946-964. (Blackboard)
c.Chung Min Lee, “Coping with Giants: South Korea’s Response to China’s and India’s Rise,” in Ashley J. Tellis, Travis Tanner, and Jessica Keough, eds., Strategic Asia 2011-12: Asia Responds to Its Rising Powers (Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2011), pp. 161-192. (Bookstore)
8 February (W): North Korea (9)
a.Jonathan D. Pollock, “The Korean Peninsula in US Strategy: Policy Issues for the Next President,” in Ashley J. Tellis, Mercy Kuo, and Andrew Marble, eds., Strategic Asia 2008-’09: Challenges and Choices (Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2008), pp. 134-164. (Blackboard)
b.Benjamin Habib, “Climate Change and Regime Perpetuation in North Korea,” Asian Survey 50(2), March/April 2010, pp. 378-401. (Blackboard)
c.Stephan Haggard and Marcus Noland, “Sanctioning North Korea: The Political Economy of Denuclearization and Proliferation,” Asian Survey 50(3), May/June 2010, pp. 539-568. (Blackboard)
d.Mel Gurtov, “Averting War in Northeast Asia: A Proposal,” The Asia-Pacific Journal, 10 January 2011. (Blackboard)
13 February (M): India and South Asia (10)
a.Harsh V. Pant, “India Comes to Terms with a Rising China,” in Ashley J. Tellis, Travis Tanner, and Jessica Keough, eds., Strategic Asia 2011-12: Asia Responds to Its Rising Powers (Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2011), pp. 101-128. (Bookstore)
b.Teresita C. Schaffer, “India Next Door, China Over the Horizon: The View from South Asia,” in Ashley J. Tellis, Travis Tanner, and Jessica Keough, eds., Strategic Asia 2011-12: Asia Responds to Its Rising Powers (Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2011), pp. 285-310. (Bookstore)
15 February (W): Russia and Australia (11)
a.Dmitri Trenin, “Challenges and Opportunities: Russia and the Rise of China and India,” in Ashley J. Tellis, Travis Tanner, and Jessica Keough, eds., Strategic Asia 2011-12: Asia Responds to Its Rising Powers (Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2011), pp. 227-256. (Bookstore)
b.Rory Medcalf, “Grand Stakes: Australia’s Future between China and India,” in Ashley J. Tellis, Travis Tanner, and Jessica Keough, eds., Strategic Asia 2011-12: Asia Responds to Its Rising Powers (Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2011), pp. 195-225. (Bookstore)
20 February (M): NO CLASS (Presidents Day)
22 February (W): Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore (12)
a.Rizal Sukma, “Indonesia-China Relations: The Politics of Re-engagement,” Asian Survey 49(4), July/August 2009, pp. 591-608. (Blackboard)
b.Senia Febrica, “Securitizing Terrorism in Southeast Asia: Accounting for the Varying Responses of Singapore and Indonesia,” Asian Survey 50(3), May/June 2010, pp. 569-590. (Blackboard)
- Ming Ting, “Singapore-Malaysia Relations: Beyond Realism,” refereed paper delivered at the Australia Political Studies Association Conference (Brisbane, Australia), July 2008. (Blackboard)
- Khadijah Md. Khalid, “Malaysia’s Foreign Policy under Najib,” Asian Survey 51(3), May/June 2011, pp. 429-452. (Blackboard)
27 February (M): Thailand and Burma (13)
a.Helen James, “Resources, Rent-Seeking, and Reform in Thailand and Myanmar (Burma): The Economics-Politics Nexus,” Asian Survey 50(2), March/April 2010, pp. 426-448. (Blackboard)
b.Paul Chambers, “Thailand on the Brink: Resurgent Military, Eroded Democracy,” Asian Survey 50(5), September/October 2010, pp. 835-858. (Blackboard)
c.David I. Steinberg, “The United States and Its Allies: The Problem of Burma/Myanmar Policy,” Contemporary Southeast Asia 29(2), 2007, pp. 219-37. (Blackboard)
29 February (W): Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia (14)
a.Ralf Emmers, “The Indochinese Enlargement of ASEAN: Security Expectations and Outcomes,” Australian Journal of International Affairs 59(1), March 2005, pp 71-88. (Blackboard)
b.Oliver Hensengerth, “Vietnam’s Security Objectives in Mekong Basin Governance,” Journal of Vietnamese Studies 3(2), 2008, pp. 101-127. (Blackboard)
c.Joseph Y. S. Cheng, “Sino-Vietnamese Relations in the Early 21st Century,” Asian Survey 51 (2), March/April 2011, pp. 379-405. (Blackboard)
5 March (M): The Philippines(15)
a.Renato Cruz De Castro, “The Revitalized Philippine-US Security Relations,” Asian Survey 43(6), November-December 2003, pp. 971-88. (Blackboard)
b.Renato Cruz De Castro, “Exploring a 21st Century Japan-Philippine Security Relationship,” Asian Survey 49(4), July-August 2009, pp. 691-715. (Blackboard)
7 March (W): Midterm EXAM (PLEASE REMEMBER BLUE BOOKS)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
19 March (M): Conceiving Asian Security Order: What Should It Look Like? (17)
a.Muthiah Alagappa, “The Study of International Order: An Analytical Framework,” in Muthiah Alagappa, ed., Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003), pp. 33-66.(Bookstore)
b.Muthiah Alagappa, “Constructing Security Order in Asia: Conceptions and Issues,” in Muthiah Alagappa, ed., Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003), pp. 70-103.(Bookstore)